I'm sorry you failed to understand.
Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
And if there was a more accurate model?
You're the one making the claim, you provide the proof.
:darwinsm:
Then we'll find it in due time. That is how real science is done.
I have. Several times in past discussions. You have given me no reason to believe that you will find it any more convincing now.
How?
You're sold out on light speed as a constant.
No, you haven't.
Heck, GC at least knows what he's talking about. He says there is no maths to establish the notion that light is a constant.
As our ability to observe and measure improves we will gather more data. As that data comes in the theory will be revised accordingly.
Every measurement indicates that it is. What is your experiment that you will use to prove the c is not a constant? To date, there has not been one experiment that shows that c is not constant. (I am referring to c in a vacuum. We know that c changes, slows down, when traveling through different mediums.)
You have a short or highly selective memory. Here are a couple of links you might find informative:
Brief history of c measurements
Is the speed of light constant This one is long but very interesting
c is a universal constant like an electron volt, Planck constant and the gravitational constant to name a few. I agree that we do not use math to establish light is a constant. That notion is established by Einstein's theory of relativity. Imagine what would happen to physics if somebody were to actually experimentally demonstrate that c is not a constant.
Newtonism doesn't predict these.
Quantum doesn't predict these, even though Bell's Theorem confirms quantum.
Quantum with relativity predicts these.
So relativity must be the foundation, upon which Quantum is built.
gcthomas
New member
Not quite, I think. Special Relativity has only limited application, but the various quantum theories are fundamentally relativistic. That is, they are entirely consistent with relativity. Both theories say something fundamental about the universe, and it doesn't make sense to build some sort of hierarchy out of them. Relativity was built with Newtonian theories as a given for certain behaviours, but Relativity is certainly superior. 'Foundations' is not a good word, maybe 'core' would be more appropriate, since the mathematics of Relativity reduces to Newtonian Physics when slow speeds and low gravity are assumed.
I took a swipe at the right word there; if "core" is a better word that's fine with me.
How?
You refuse to contemplate the possibility of the non-constancy of the speed of light.
Name one.
None.
As has been pointed out (but you just leaped into the conversation, pretending to be an expert), experiments do not provide proofs.
The claim is made by your side that this proof has been provided, although GC denies it. Show us that you are willing to join the discussion and name the maths construct that Einstein claimed to be a proof that light speed is a constant in any reference frame.
There has not been one experiment performed that might fulfill your claim that has not assumed the constancy of c.
If you wanted to expose how little you understand this discussion, you couldn't have done a better job.
Neither shows how the constancy of c is proved. The first assumes it as true and points to the second, which glosses over the experiments and maths behind the idea.
News flash. Einstein's theory is a mathematical model.
:darwinsm:
Imagine what would happen if someone demonstrated that the Earth orbits the sun.
Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies.
We know how much you love those.
Quantum by itself can explain why solid purified elemental metals can be polished to a mirror finish, but only relativistic quantum, can explain why the mirror finish on solid gold, is yellow. Quantum only approximates what relativistic quantum actually predicts, so again, that to me seems like relativity is the boss. It's like a sandcastle at the beach, and if it's carefully treated on a calm day, it is fine, but when the tide comes in, or a kid falls into it, it will crumble, like how quantum must be relativistic, in order for it to predict that solid gold polished to a mirror finish is golden/yellowish, and that all the other metals in the periodic table are like polished chrome.
gcthomas
New member
It is true the the quantum mechanics of the 1920s doesn't predict the colour of gold without the addition of elements of Special Relativity, but that isn't the whole story. (Incidentally, silver has similar effects to gold, afaik, hence its colour that is more yellow than aluminium. Also, relativity accounts for the first 10 volts of 12 volt lead-acid car batteries. :up: )
Chemists cannot use the full Schrödinger Equations to solve their atom behaviours, becaues they involve the interactions of more than a few particles. To derive anything useful quantum chemistry is a semi-empirical field. This means that they use the depricated, very early and semi-classical quantum mechanics of de Broglie and bolt on discrete parts of other theories (in this case, Special Relativity) as they see fit and as far as it gives results consistent with observations.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the distant successor to early quantum mechanics (along with the other quantum field theories) and it isn't quantum mechanics with a relativity bolt-on correction, but is relativistic in its nature. It fully incorporates the earlier theories from a century ago, and is bigger and better than both. QED is the most tested and most precisely accurate theortical model that humanity has ever produced *it really doesn't stand in second place to any other theoretical construction. (Special Relativity is an incomplete theory that was developed a decade later with the more general General Relativity).
Chemists are restricted in their use of QED due to complexity, in the same way that aerodynamicists are restricted in their use of the full Navier-Stokes fluid mechanics equations: they are fiendishly complex to handle mathematically for any other than the most simple problems.
Cheers Nihilo!
I answered this. I'm sorry you faild to understand what I said. Feel free to go back and read it again.
No, I don't. That possibility exists. At this moment in time everything that we have derived explains the working of things when c is constant. If c is not constant then everything we have learned fails. You claim that c is not constant but refuse to offer anything other than your opinion that that is the case. There is no reason to take your claim seriously when you offer no alternative nor a way to test your hypothesis.
Please Google "History of light speed measurement".
So why should we accept what you assert?
Experiments provide data that support or oppose a hypothesis/theory. The theory is "c is a constant." The experiments support this theory.
Are you looking for a mathematical proof? Please clearly define what you consider proof. In the meantime I'll see if Einstein "proved" anything about c.
. It's kind of tough to construct such an experiment. Maybe someday we'll posses the ability to construct such an experiment. In the meantime, you can play with the math. What happens to all the equations that accurately explain the way things work when c is constant if c is not constant.
lets look at how the other universal constants are proved, shall we?
Yes and we have established that mathematical models are acceptable models for describing how things work. If you do not agree with that, by all means, please explain what your problem is.
We have.
There are no fallacies here. Everything has been defined including any assumptions. Scientists always state their assumptions because those are the weak points of their arguments. That is where future scientists can do more work. If you think there is a fallacy, point it out.
Ignoring everything above, I really only have one question that I would like you to answer: What difference does it make to you whether c is constant or not?
gcthomas
New member
He feels that modern Physics makes accepting his brand of Biblical Fundamentalism rather difficult, so he must think that he has found a cunning way to claim that Physics is unreliable. He won't listen to arguments that these theories live or die by how well they model reality as tested by experiment. He thinks that you can prove or disprove physical theories by thought experiment like the ancient Greeks did. And look how well it worked out for them!
Nope.
Incorrect ideas can often produce useful results.
You're the one postulating the idea; you provide the proof.
You expose your scientism every time you speak.
Ignoring everything above, I really only have one question that I would like you to answer: What difference does it make to you whether c is constant or not?
:yawn:
Darwinists love nonsense questions when faced with a challenge.
You postulate the constancy of light speed, you show the proof.
Interesting how foolish you willing to look to avoid answering a very simple question.
It is a constant. Like the other universal constants, it has been determined to be constant as constants are sometimes needed to make mathematical models match observed conditions (data). Here is something that explains it in a bit.
One should separate the question into two parts, the first of which is philosophical, and the second physics. The philosophical question is resolved by understanding that there are "constants" which are just those that set the system of units, and these are constant for the simple reason that they define our conventional units. The unit-defining constants philosophically cannot change. They can only be determined relative to physical measurements using physical atoms and light, and these measurements serve to fix our units. The constants which are philosophically incapable of changing are listed below:
So the gravitational constant simply cannot change. It is philosophically meaningless to say that it does change. What you would really be saying is that atoms are changing size relative to Planck units. Here are some constants that can, in principle, change:
|
Hope that helps your understanding of universal constants.